Jay's Other Stuff

December 30th, 2011 at 4:55PM

polerin:

jsmooth995:

baconqurlyq:

fancycwabs:

As big a fan of Hodgman as I am, having a word that conveys disinterest (especially when an opinion has been solicited) is useful. At the same time, I imagine he is exposed to it much more often than I am.
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS WHY THIS IS GETTING REBLOGGED: I don’t care how big a minor television personality you are, if you can’t get your point across in under 140 characters, PUT. IT. ON. YOUR. BLOG. You can link to it from Twitter if you think it needs extra exposure or buzz-marketing. Because an even greater expression of disinterest than silence or replying with “meh” is the unfollowing I perform when you spam twitter with your short stories.

Reblog for my pet peeve: people who don’t get that twitter != blog. Stephen Fry did this a LOT before he got way too busy to tweet with any regularity.

Interesting.. I completely disagree with this, and I’m curious whether people that feel this way are usually those who use twitter on their phones/phone-sized devices, while those who have no beef with it mostly use twitter on the web? Either way, IMO it’s not “using twitter wrong,” just using it in a different way. I appreciate seeing people work through a thought over several tweets, it often leads to some of the best twitter conversations IMO.
Processing your thoughts in that medium allows a different process and can take your ideas down a different path as you think it through in increments, plus the thought process can be collaborative in a different way.
(EDIT: also I think the first post above was misreading the particular sort of “meh” Hodgman was talking about.)

I think Hodgman was being pedantic and holier than thou about meh. I love meh, but I don’t use it in that way. As for Twitter != blog, forget that, I work ideas out over multiple tweets all the time, 140 is not always enough, plus it allows people to pick out parts of the discussion that is of interest to them and spread that part.
It does mean that you have to take your responsibility to make sure your message is clear more seriously, however.

What struck a chord for me was the part about how (not always but often) a “meh” seems to come out of an impulse to squelch other people’s joy, or sort of undercut/discredit someone’s enthusiasm/sincerity. Or in political discussion as a brusque, dismissive way to indicate this issue you’re passionate about is not a “real issue.”
It usually seems needlessly unkind and hostile to me, in a tiny increment that makes it feel all the more pernicious. I guess I’m curious what you love about it actually. :)

jsmooth995:

baconqurlyq:

fancycwabs:

As big a fan of Hodgman as I am, having a word that conveys disinterest (especially when an opinion has been solicited) is useful. At the same time, I imagine he is exposed to it much more often than I am.

HOWEVER, AND THIS IS WHY THIS IS GETTING REBLOGGED: I don’t care how big a minor television personality you are, if you can’t get your point across in under 140 characters, PUT. IT. ON. YOUR. BLOG. You can link to it from Twitter if you think it needs extra exposure or buzz-marketing. Because an even greater expression of disinterest than silence or replying with “meh” is the unfollowing I perform when you spam twitter with your short stories.

Reblog for my pet peeve: people who don’t get that twitter != blog. Stephen Fry did this a LOT before he got way too busy to tweet with any regularity.

Interesting.. I completely disagree with this, and I’m curious whether people that feel this way are usually those who use twitter on their phones/phone-sized devices, while those who have no beef with it mostly use twitter on the web? Either way, IMO it’s not “using twitter wrong,” just using it in a different way. I appreciate seeing people work through a thought over several tweets, it often leads to some of the best twitter conversations IMO.

Processing your thoughts in that medium allows a different process and can take your ideas down a different path as you think it through in increments, plus the thought process can be collaborative in a different way.

(EDIT: also I think the first post above was misreading the particular sort of “meh” Hodgman was talking about.)

I think Hodgman was being pedantic and holier than thou about meh. I love meh, but I don’t use it in that way. As for Twitter != blog, forget that, I work ideas out over multiple tweets all the time, 140 is not always enough, plus it allows people to pick out parts of the discussion that is of interest to them and spread that part.

It does mean that you have to take your responsibility to make sure your message is clear more seriously, however.

What struck a chord for me was the part about how (not always but often) a “meh” seems to come out of an impulse to squelch other people’s joy, or sort of undercut/discredit someone’s enthusiasm/sincerity. Or in political discussion as a brusque, dismissive way to indicate this issue you’re passionate about is not a “real issue.”

It usually seems needlessly unkind and hostile to me, in a tiny increment that makes it feel all the more pernicious. I guess I’m curious what you love about it actually. :)